UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-7737
JOHN JAMES BELL, a/k/a Omar Abdel-Al-Mumit,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
CECILIA REYNOLDS, Warden, Kershaw Correctional Institution,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (8:07-cv-02776-GRA)
Submitted: April 22, 2008 Decided: May 9, 2008
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John James Bell, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
John James Bell appeals the district court’s order
denying relief on his petitions for writ of coram nobis and for
writ of mandamus. The district court referred this case to a
magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). The
magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Bell
that failure to file timely and specific objections to this
recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court
order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Bell
failed to file specific objections to the magistrate judge’s
recommendation. Rather, Bell filed objections that did not address
the magistrate judge’s findings and were construed by the district
court as a general objection to the magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation.
The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate
judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of
the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been
warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Wright v. Collins,
766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474
U.S. 140 (1985). Bell has waived appellate review by failing to
timely file specific objections after receiving proper notice.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
We deny Bell’s request for appointment of counsel and
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
- 2 -
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -